F.F. B ruce was once asked if a church should exclude someone
who, having accepted Paul's doctrine of justification by faith as
apostolic, thus excluded the book of James from the canon for its
teaching on justification by works (Answers to Questions, p. 220).
Bruce's reply notes that even such a one as Martin Luther
depreciated the epistle of James for that very reason, and it was
doubtful that many would wish to excommunicate him (i.e.,
among Protestants!). But as Bruce replied, the teachings of Paul
and James on the subject are not incompatible. I bring this up in
connection with Ms. Nancy Barcus' review of All We're Meant to
Be: A Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation by Letha
Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (JASA, March 1976) who regard
Paul's interpretation of Genesis concerning women to be in error,
a left-over rabbinical argument short of the Biblical ideal of Gal.
3:28. Certainly many Christians have come to this
conclusion-Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female, to name
another-and with them I hope to remain amicable. However, I
consider such a view, as I also consider Luther's view on James, to
be definitely sub-Christian. It does not seem to take seriously the
doctrine of inspiration, and it would seem to deny the first item in
this Journal's statement of faith.

But statements of faith must not be held against Reason. If the
conclusion that Paul was definitely in error in some of his
teachings is the only intellectually acceptable conclusion based on
careful study, then it must be accepted. But I suggest that there are
other solutions. Since Ms. Betty Bube went to the trouble to fill
nearly two pages of this Journal with Ms. Hardesty's and Ms.
Scanzoni's interpretative arguments, it seems also appropriate to
list some which seem to me more in congruence with the Journal's
statement of faith.

1. Gal. 3:28. This is indeed a key verse for understanding
male/female relationships.

2. 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Why then does Paul not allow women to
teach? It should be noted that he did allow them to pray and
prophesy (I Cor. 11:5). One answer is that in the creation stories,
the order of Creation (v. 13) does in fact indicate a secondary
status for women, as also does the curse from the Fall (v. 14-Gen.
3:16). But these are transcended in Christ through whom equal
status will ultimately be procured. As for the present, however, a
tension existed between the old order and the new creation in
Christ. Paul had to make allowances for an interim period from
the Creation/Fall ordinances to the new regime of Grace, in which
it was not practicable to give immediate and complete effect to his
insights on social questions like slavery and the place of women.

3. 1 Cor. 11:2-16. The tension between old and new is also here.
In wearing a veil, the woman recognized the hierarchy order shown
by Creation (v. 3-9), being consistent with nature's endowment to
her of faster growing hair (v. 14-15), and consistent with public
seemliness and general Church practice (v. 13, 16). But above all,
the veil was a symbol of AUTHORITY (v. 10, see NIV, NEB,
NASB or RV; many other modern translations obscure this verse).
It is not a sign of submission to her husband, nor of social dignity;
it is a sign of her authority. "In the synagogue service, a woman
could play no significant part: her presence would not even suffice
to make up the required quorum of ten.... In Christ she received
equality of status with man: she might pray or prophesy at the
meetings of the church, and her veil was a sign of this new
authority." (F.F. Bruce, I& IICorinthians, p. 106).

1 submit this as a possible scheme of interpretation which does
not require attributing to Paul erroneous teaching. I hope this can
be of help to someone.